23 arbitrary decisions.85 In such sense, the reasons given for a judgment must show that the arguments by the parties have been duly weighed and that the body of evidence has been analyzed. Moreover, a reasoned decision demonstrates to the parties that they have been heard and, when the decision is subject to appeal, it affords them the possibility to argue against it, and of having such decision reviewed by an appellate body.86 On account of all the foregoing, the duty to state grounds is one of the “due guarantees” included in Article 8(1) to safeguard the right to due process. 79. The Commission alleged that the CORJS “did not review the description [as an inexcusable judicial error], but just 'confirmed' [the] decision” adopted by the CPAM. The Commission considers that “[t]he insufficient grounds concerning the description of the infringement show that […] the [judges’] conduct was not described as a disciplinary matter of unlawful conduct”, nor “[was] their suitability to hold office assessed.” It also underscored that “the defective grounds did not provide sufficient elements to quantify the sanction.” The Commission indicated that in the instant case there was “a reasonable and reasoned difference of possible legal interpretations concerning a particular procedural definition,” for which reason “removal from office in the instant case due to [an inexcusable judicial error] is contrary to judicial independence, as it undermines the right of judges to decide freely according to law.” In such sense, “the judges were not tried for their disciplinary conduct, but for the legal interpretation they endorsed in the judgment.” 80. The representative argued that “the CORJS did not allow the victims […] to produce evidence and that it did not state the grounds justifying the decision whereby it removed them from office.” Likewise, he indicated that regarding the description of the inexcusable judicial error “there was no possible defense”, bearing in mind that “[t]here was no defense before the [CPAM…], for the victims in the instant case were neither parties nor given notice thereof, and there could not be a defense in the CORJS […], for this ‘matter had already been decided by the [CPAM].’” The representative alleged that “in said ruling the Commission failed to determine the scope of the ‘inexcusable judicial error’ and to explain why said facts would be grounds for removal from office, which is the highest administrative sanction.” 81. The State contended that the victims were notified that an investigation against them had been commenced by the IGC and that they did not exercise their “right to defense” at that stage. Furthermore, it pointed out that “all the members of the First Court […] submitted their written defense” before the CORJS. The State added that it is an “error […] to confuse the same grounds with no grounds at all, for when a jurisdictional body delivers a decision adopting the same criteria employed in another decision by another jurisdictional body […] it has reaffirmed such grounds, rather than delivered a groundless decision.” 82. As it was pointed out, the CPAM determined in a judgment that an inexcusable judicial error had been made and forwarded its ruling to the IGC. During the public hearing before the Court the then active Inspector General de Tribunales 85 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 63, paras. 152 and 153, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 83, para. 107. Likewise, the European Court has pointed out that the judges must indicate with sufficient clarity the reasons for which they adopt their decisions. Cf. Hadjianstassiou v. Greece, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 252, p. 8, § 23. 86 Cf. Suominen v. Finland, supra note 84. In its turn, the Human Rights Committee considered that the absence of a reasoned judgment of the Court of Appeal was likely to prevent the author from successfully arguing his petition before a higher court, thus preventing the availability of a further remedy. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Case of Hamilton v. Jamaica, Communication No. 333/1988, CCPR/C/50/D/333/1988, March 23, 1994.